Black v. New Castle County Board of License, 117 A.3d 1027

Neighbors Henry and Mary Lou Black and Blackball Properties, LLC (the "Blacks") challenged New Castle County Department of Land Use's grant of a change-of-use certificate to Gary and Adria Staffieri, who planned to open an automobile detailing shop.
The Board of License, Inspection and Review initially reversed the Department after finding the Staffieris had access to only one parking space; the Blacks had physically blocked 14 shared parking spaces with a concrete barrier.
The Staffieris obtained a Court of Chancery post-trial order declaring they had an equal right to use the 14 shared spaces under a 1946 deed, secured an injunction removing the barrier, and won attorneys’ fees for the Blacks' bad-faith conduct.
After reapplying and placing the Chancery decision in the record, the Department again issued the change-of-use certificate and the Board affirmed, relying on the Chancery declaration of easement rights.
The General Assembly provided no statutory right to appeal Board decisions; the Blacks sought certiorari review in Superior Court, which affirmed the Board. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the certiorari decision for legal error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether certiorari permits plenary review of Board's factual and legal determinations	Black: Board erred in counting available parking and failed to consider arguments; certiorari should allow correction	Board/Staffieri: Certiorari is limited to face-of-record review; Chancery ruling shows Staffieris' parking rights and Board acted within discretion	Certiorari limited; no manifest error on face of record; affirm Board
Whether Board manifestly erred in relying on Chancery order about parking easement	Black: Chancery ruling irrelevant or insufficient; even with easement Staffieris lack required parking	Staffieri: Chancery conclusively established easement rights to the 14 spaces; Board reasonably relied on it	Board permissibly relied on Chancery judgment; no manifest legal error
Whether Board proceeded irregularly or failed to make an adequate record	Black: Procedural irregularities and inadequate reasoning prevented review	Board/Staffieri: Board held multiple hearings, issued a written decision and considered evidence	No procedural irregularity; record adequate for certiorari review
Whether the UDC required denial because shared spaces were grandfathered for others	Black: Shared spots are grandfathered to others and cannot satisfy new-use requirement	Staffieri: Department and Board have discretion under UDC; equitable considerations and Chancery ruling support approval	Board acted within UDC discretion; not manifestly contrary to law

Maddrey v. Justice of Peace Court 13, 956 A.2d 1204 (Del. 2008) (certiorari review is limited to the record and does not include weighing evidence)
Reise v. Bd. of Bldg. Appeals of City of Newark, 746 A.2d 271 (Del. 2000) (discussing necessity of tribunal statements of reasons where record is inadequate)
Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431 (Del. 1977) (distinguishing certiorari from appeal; certiorari reviews only regularity of proceedings)
Dover Historical Soc. v. City of Dover Planning Comm’n, 838 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2003) (certiorari aims to correct errors of law and restrain excess of jurisdiction)
Matter of Butler, 609 A.2d 1080 (Del. 1992) (scope of certiorari review is strictly limited to jurisdictional matters, errors of law, or irregularities)
DuPont v. Family Court for New Castle County, 153 A.2d 189 (Del. 1959) (historical statement on the limited nature of certiorari review)